Ues strip_prefix for cleaner code #12631
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @epage (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
epage
reviewed
Sep 6, 2023
Comment on lines
339
to
+341
| for (k, v) in metadata.iter().filter(|p| p.0.starts_with(prefix)) { | ||
| to_remove.push(k.to_string()); | ||
| let k = &k[prefix.len()..]; | ||
| let k = k.strip_prefix(prefix).unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: you could turn the filter into a filter_map but then each iteration would have two different keys so unsure if its worth it
epage
reviewed
Sep 6, 2023
epage
approved these changes
Sep 6, 2023
|
I found a lot more. |
epage
approved these changes
Sep 7, 2023
|
@bors r=epage |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2023
Ues strip_prefix for cleaner code ### What does this PR try to resolve? In #12629 (review) Ed pointed out how much cleaner the code can be using `strip_prefix`, so I found a bunch more places where we should be using it. ### How should we test and review this PR? Internal refactor and test still pass.
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
|
I don't understand the error report, I don't think I made a breaking change. |
ehuss
reviewed
Sep 8, 2023
The check isn't for just semver-breaking changes, but for any change. If there aren't any semver-breaking changes, then you just need to bump the patch version. |
Co-authored-by: Eric Huss <eric@huss.org>
|
@bors r=epage |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2023
Update cargo 14 commits in d14c85f4e6e7671673b1a1bc87231ff7164761e1..2fc85d15a542bfb610aff7682073412cf635352f 2023-09-05 22:28:10 +0000 to 2023-09-09 01:49:46 +0000 - feat: Stabilize lints (rust-lang/cargo#12648) - Ues strip_prefix for cleaner code (rust-lang/cargo#12631) - fix: don't print _TOKEN suggestion when not applicable (rust-lang/cargo#12644) - Bump cargo-credential-1password to v0.4.0 (rust-lang/cargo#12641) - refactor: put `Source` trait under `cargo::sources` (rust-lang/cargo#12527) - Error out if `cargo clean --doc` is mixed with `-p`. (rust-lang/cargo#12637) - Add wrappers around std::fs::metadata (rust-lang/cargo#12636) - Add with_stdout_unordered. (rust-lang/cargo#12635) - Fix example for creating a git project test. (rust-lang/cargo#12632) - Read/write the encoded `cargo update --precise` in the same place (rust-lang/cargo#12629) - docs(guide): Apply feedback on CI (rust-lang/cargo#12630) - fix: improve warning for both token & credential-provider (rust-lang/cargo#12626) - Skip clean up `profile.release.package."*"` (rust-lang/cargo#12624) - Add MSRV validation GitHub Action for cargo-credential (rust-lang/cargo#12623)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR try to resolve?
In #12629 (review) Ed pointed out how much cleaner the code can be using
strip_prefix, so I found a bunch more places where we should be using it.How should we test and review this PR?
Internal refactor and test still pass.